Let the Professor Beware!

[newphd]

This is a warning for all of those who consider the job ad for an "Assistant Professor" for Ashford University. The jobs there turn out to be a "bait and switch" sort of situation in which you apply for an Assistant Professor position and end up being the Chair of their Program(s) (whether you have ever had experience as a professor or not). The job requires working far more than 70-80 hours a week with no time left for conducting research to obtain a real position at a real university.

By the way, take note that the jobs at that place are "at-will" which means that you can be fired at any time for no reason at all without recourse. Read the fine print before agreeing to sign yourself over to this place because Ashford is a for-profit business and the bottom line is all that the people there care about (just take a look at the news last year when hundreds of people were fired all at once at that place). Faculty are an afterthought with that company because they are floundering and hoping to obtain accreditation with one agency and hold onto their accreditation with another accrediting agency.

[yup]

These situations are becoming more common. I worry that we're looking at the future of higher education and (gulp) academic work.

[accreditation]

I would be leery of working for a university that lost its accreditation bid and is blatantly for-profit.

[JustCurious]

How do you determine if a university is for profit, or if it lost accreditation?

[Google]

There's this thing out there called Google, see.

bit.ly/10EFsjD

[newby]

Oh, and let's not forget that the same company--Bridgepoint (that's right, I mean "company") that owns Ashford also owns the University of the Rockies so that means that you will have the same problems if you work for that place too...

Are there no real educational institutions left for new PhDs or is this bunch of diploma mills the future?
Just wondering...

[noanonymous]

Yes, this is the wave of the future. Board of Trustees at many public institutions are composed of people actively working to sabotage public university systems so that they can be privatized (many of them are simply right-wing tools and others are often on the exec level of education corporations--like the one that purchased the institution they call "Ashford University"). They hire administrators some of whom get it and some of whom simply don't fully get it but realize that they must comply and use the "corporate language" to keep their positions and get promotions (like from Dean to Provost). When elites looked at the federal budget in the 1980s they saw two things that could be privatized: healthcare and education. They saved education for second and it is in full force now (Rutgers BoT has some shady memo whereby Pearson [it appears from the legalese] would own faculty's research. But it goes beyond education--there is a push on Wall Street to privatize many other things (an asset bought at fire sale prices yields pretty big profits and you can even "securitize" stuff like sewer and public drinking water systems. There were even "triggers' placed in the "stimulus" (Buy America Bonds) to help privatize public goods through debt.

[newphd]

The outlook is really depressing. What's worse is that a college degree won't mean much with places like these basically giving one to everyone who signs up.

[economic sociologist]

^^ Easy there Francis.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not some crazy libertarian, but I do actually know a bit about public finance.

Privatization has been going on for a long time with public sector assets, with mixed results, i.e. it depends upon the situation.

Your Rutgers and Ashford examples are indeed scary, and I'm not exactly thrilled about the monopoly issues with journals either, with their subsequent monopoly pricing ability.

However, public asset construction has been securitized for decades, in that the construction of roads, bridges and other infrastructure is often paid for in the form of a muni-bond. (Check them out - they usually have tax free dividends.) OK, a few cities have sold assets like bridges and tollways, which have then been packaged into investments similar to REITs. But sale of public assets has happened historically as well. Government entities also sometimes take these things over in the reverse process, often due to externality issues that make something that is a social good unprofitable to run, like public transit.

As for privitization, when a city employs a contractor to do a job, that is also privitization. Government can't and shouldn't do everything - there's no reason to have a dedicated specialist dam builder, for example.

If we're talking about privitization of ongoing services (e.g. busses), again, the results can be good or bad. OK, effects on salary and benefits for those workers are generally not great, but as taxpayers we pay less for those services. So good or bad depends upon your perspective. Companies are also motivated to look for efficiencies as they could lose those contracts if they can't provide an adequate quality level.

I'm still thinking about the whole for-profit universities issue, which seems to have the same bad incentives as for-profit hospitals. But if you're interested in reading more on the topic, Weisbrod's To Profit or Not to Profit would be a good reader in the area.

[sukie]

While I am all for the capitalist system, this trend bodes ill for the future of academia. If everyone can get a college degree (even those who can barely read and write at a high school level, let alone a college level), then what will bachelor's degrees be worth ultimately?
Furthermore, the idea that someone can basically buy a degree puts the integrity of higher education on the line. By the time places like these are through, the only thing that a bachelor's degree will be good for is getting a job at McDonald's. I am more afraid that they will then begin to offer doctoral degrees for purchase soon at places like Ashford...